AddToAny

What we look for in a Pope

The good Prelate, when prevented from walking down the street in the service of the Lord, should try to walk down a new path, and never stop. If he is prevented from implementing reforms with the aid of law and religion, he should do so with his voice. If he cannot preach, let him write; if he cannot write, let him pray; if he is not able to pray, let him weep. He must always keep watch and work in the service of God, for the good of the souls under his charge, for splendor in Divine Worship, and for his Church, up to the moment of his last breath.

15 ... Jesus said to Simon Peter, "Simon, son of John, do you love me more than these?"...

17 ... "Lord, you know everything; you know that I love you." (Jesus) said to him, "Feed my sheep.

18 Amen, amen, I say to you, when you were younger, you used to dress yourself and go where you wanted; but when you grow old, you will stretch out your hands, and someone else will dress you and lead you where you do not want to go."

Mark 3:21 And when his friends had heard of it, they went out to lay hold on him. For they said: He is become mad.

I am praying a Novena to Pope Saint Pius X and petitioning for a Pope after his own heart.

I desire a Pope who institues a radical and rapid restoration and which puissant praxis will result in the Brick By Brick Bund and the Conservative Catholics and the world accusing him of being mad.

Ought not Our Sweet Jesus on Earth, the Vicar Of Christ, be he who most closely walks in the Way; and if Pope or man think he is walking in the Way of Christ and has never been accused of being mad, can he be sure he really is imitating Jesus?

I hope for one who speaks in relatively simple declarative sentences. I want one who will stand up in the face of the relentless demands that the Church change to adapt to the latest immoral fad, gay "marriage," contraception, divorce and remarriage, and just say "Nuts!", in the words of General McAullife at Bastogne. I wouldn't mind if he says it in a pastoral way even, as long as he says it clearly. I do think the Church is well and truly encircled on all sides and from within at this point.

I'm hoping and praying for a Leo XIV or Pius XIII. However, I wouldn't be saddened at all, if, in an act of sublime goodwill to the JP II-ers, the next holy father took the name Leo Pius I or, for that matter, Pius Leo I. :)

Please. Enough with that. Just give us action. Other than "writings" along the line of Bishop Scheider's Syllabus of Errors, simply give us action.

I believe that the following is the key sign as to whether our soon-to-be-Pope is determined to inititate at least the beginning of the end to the (Latin) Church's crisis of faith:

He reforms the Novus Ordo with actual force. Pope Benedict XVI's "reform" has been a non-binding "preference" or "by example" reform.

Example: His Holiness placed Sacred Hosts upon the tongues of communicants who had knelt to receive Holy Communion.

But His Holiness did not mandate the return of said Traditional practice throughout the Latin Church.

In fairness, Pope Benedict XVI's approach has at least initiated Tradition-related discussions throughout the Church. Should we return to the reception of Holy Communion on the tongue?

Should we restore meatless Fridays? (Bishops in certain countries have done so.) Should we restore Mass ad orientem?

His Holiness has at least spurred a much-needed discussion.

Now, we require concrete actions from Rome. I realize that the process will move slowly...it'll take years. But we need a Pope who will declare that over time, this and that Traditional Latin Church liturgical practice will be enacted...will be enacted!

If not, then the Latin Church's liturgical/spiritual crisis will continue in full force.

Benedict Carter said..."We need a Hammer of the Heretics, neither more nor less."

That is the last thing that we need. Such an approach would make our current crisis of faith look like the Garden of Eden.

We may as well move this second directly into the end-time absolute complete collapse of the Church — the almost near-disappearance of Catholics.

The "hammer" approach would plunge the Church so far down the already deep liturgical/spiritual criis hole that it She would require centuries to return even to the level of today's crisis....if She could even reach that level.

We need a Pope who is a determined reformer. We don't need a get-out-of-my-hammer-swinging-way tough-guy. That approach would flop.

@Prof. Basto, many thanks for the link to Prof. de Mattei's article on the papal abdication. Not only is it a very interesting article, provoking much thought, especially at the end, where de Mattei seems to suggest that we will not have heard the last from Pope/Cardinal Ratzinger (I might add: unless his successor keeps him under lock and key), but also is it not interesting that the SSPX would publish the translation of the article? I seem to recall that only recently it was stated in the comments here that the SSPX did not like Prof. de Mattei for his association with TFP.

On the broader question of the next pope, I have no clue who he will be, but I suspect one not even as much to the liking of traditionalists as Pope Benedict. Thus we will have to practice Romanita.

Enough of globe trotting and papal extravaganzas. These things are extraneous to the role of the Pope.

There is no reason why a youngish and vigorous pope cannot travel here and there in the early years of his papacy, but you can see the toll these marathon journeys took on Pope John Paul II, and also on Pope Benedict XVI.

In these days of instant universal communication, there is simply no need for a pope to maintain his public profile in this way. He can be seen and heard instantly all over the world through modern means of communication.

Not for nothing is the Pope the Bishop of Rome. And there's more than enough for him to do in Rome, notably a thorough reform - no, I mean a really radical reform - of the Curia, in the interests of the papacy and the Church. In fact, this is the priority for the next pope. It won't be an easy task, in fact it will test his skills to the utmost, but when a Pope walks hand in hand with Christ, whose Vicar he is, he will be upheld in more than this.

Of course, no pope can be in two places at once. That is why I say, Holy Father, your place, first and foremost, is in Rome. The Church needs you there. We all need you there. From wherever we live on this earth, you have our love and our prayer. Always.

I said that "I believe that the following is the key sign as to whether our soon-to-be-Pope is determined to inititate at least the beginning of the end to the (Latin) Church's crisis of faith:

"He reforms the Novus Ordo with actual force."

I had been convinced for many years that a future Pope would return the Latin Church to the Traditional Roman Mass. Now, I am not certain of that.

That is why I believe that it's more likely that definitive action in regard to Novus Ordo-related reforms is the key as to whether our soon-to-be Pope is determined to lift the (Latin) Church from Her liturgical/spiritual crisis.

The so-called "reform of the reform" (or as Pope Benedict XVI has said, simply "the new liturgical reform") is the direction into which the Holy See is determined to move.

The reason is that the Church is committed clearly to the Second Sacred Vatican Ecumenical Council.

The Holy See has maintained that Vatican II is here to stay. The Holy See is determined to approach Vatican II as follows:

We have had two Second Vatican Councils...the real Council and Virtual Council (the one that journalists supposedly enacted).

The Virtual Council had all but swept the real Council aside. However, the real Council is about to emerge finally.

Certain folks many reject the above. But that is clearly the manner in which Holy Mother Church is determined to proceed.

The real Council is about to become realized, according to the Holy See. The Second Vatican Council's most prominent feature is the call to liturgical reform.

Therefore, we will finally begin to realize the authentic liturgical reforms, the authentic Mass, that the Vatican II Fathers had envisioned for Holy Mother Church.

The following is undeniable: During Vatican II, it was recognized throughout the Universal Church that Latin Church liturgy had stagnated.

The overall state of liturgy throughout the Latin Church was, at best, mediocre. Everybody at Vatican II realized that the Roman Mass required serious reforms.

As I noted the other day on this blog, even Archbishop Lefebvre pushed for serious liturgical reform. The Society of Saint Pius X has acknowledged — they don't have a choice as the record exsists — that Archbishop Lefebvre desired the following "radical" reform:

http://angeluspress.org/The-Mass-of-All-Time

"How many people know that he was in favour of the vernacular for the readings at Mass, and indeed for most of the first part of the Mass called the Mass of Catechumens?"Tom

There were just four bishops at Vatican II who voted against the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy.

At Vatican II, 2,147 bishops, including Archbishop Lefebvre, voted in favor of the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy.

However, it must be noted that the majority of bishops at Vatican II were not determined to destroy the Traditional Roman Mass. Some bishops desired that result.

However, in 1967 A.D., during Rome's Synod of Bishops, the Novus Ordo was offered for the first time.

The majority of bishops rejected the Novus Ordo. An alarm sounded throughout the Church as Cardinals, bishops and orthodox liturgical demanded an immediate halt to the liturgical reform.

In his book, The Reform of the Roman Liturgy, Monsignor Klaus Gamber declared that "one statement we can make with certainty is that the new Ordo of the Mass that has now emerged would not have been endorsed by the majority of the Council Fathers."

The orthodox vision of Vaticat II is not a gutting of the Traditional Roman Mass. The orthodox vision, as championed by Archbishop Lefebvre, is to keep the Roman Mass intact while introducing such reforms as the limited use of vernaculars.

The Holy See is determined to move the Roman Mass into the orthodox direction envisioned by Council. The Traditional Roman Mass will remain for those Catholics who wish to attach themselves to said Mass. The Holy See has made that clear.

For the majority of Latin Church Catholics, they someday will worship God via the Roman Mass that the majority of Council Fathers had envisioned for the Church.

I would like to see an reduced travel schedule and more time spent on the diocese of Rome, which aside from tourist-attraction churches, is in shambles. Few Roman attend Mass on Sundays and aside from the FSSP church and St Maria ad Martyres (Pantheon) the liturgical state is terrible and the stories of the priests in the City is scandalous.

Strength and vitality are not guaranteed for any pope but suffering is, it appears. This is like Christ Himself who endured suffering beyond measure. The idea of Christ resigning from the Cross is incomprehensible. This leaves Benedict's resignation in another light entirely. But there is still time for him to reject a resignation and let us hope that happens for the good of the Church. Imagine the field-day the modernists will have electing one of their own at the conclave. I don't like to even think about it.

"The real Council is about to become realized ... Therefore, we will finally begin to realize the authentic liturgical reforms, the authentic Mass, that the Vatican II Fathers had envisioned for Holy Mother Church."

I wonder how old you are, Tom?

I think probably much too young to have known the first NO which was followed by the second in the early '70's and then another and then another .... and each with 5,000 variations depending what mood the priest's cat woke up with.

Haven't you grasped the nature of what this is? It's called "PERMANENT REVOLUTION" and is part and parcel of classic Marxist revolutionary theory.

NO! It's YOU living in cloud cuckoo land. The NO, if left unabrogated which is all it's fit for) in a generation's time will look like what? An American Baptist "mega Church" slap and clap fest, with no pretence to be Catholic in any shape or form.

By then I'll have joined the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church, or the Maronites.

The Church needs the clerical equivalent of a Jack Welch. A strong, relatively charismatic manager who inspires a salutary fear against shenanigans. The Church has not had this for almost 60 years now and the fabric is fraying badly around the edges because of it. I agree with Tom that a ban on communion in the hand would send an extraordinarily strong message and would do away with the guitar era once and for all.

"I'm hoping and praying for a Leo XIV or Pius XIII. However, I wouldn't be saddened at all, if, in an act of sublime goodwill to the JP II-ers, the next holy father took the name Leo Pius I or, for that matter, Pius Leo I. :)"

"Before the end," these are Jesus' words, "there will be many false prophets who will lead many astray." Now what constitutes a 'false prophet'? The egregopis failure to 'admonish the sinner' and preach the gospel, "in season and out-of-season", especially to the unwilling, can be a fatal flaw according to Malcolm Muggeridge, one of the great converts from protestantism and best of apologists of the Catholic faith in the last century. He taught vigorously when he said: "By not being evangelical, we drop out one whole part of the gospel, its austeree character, and considering it then enough to be benevolent, courteous, candid, delicate; though it includes no true fear of God, no fervent zeal for His Glory, no deep hatred of sin, and no horror at the sight of sinners, and no indignation; in short not being 'hot or cold', but 'lukewarm' about one's faith in God. Why is this so, according to the astute Malcolm Muggeridge? "Because we have not acted from a love of the Faith but from the influences of our age." Moreover, Bishop Fulton Sheen likewise warned of the same when he taught: "The temptation of the Church in the next 100 years will be to 'conform' with the world!" In fact, Malcolm Muggeridge explains further why this spiritual maldy occurs, he says: "In this matter, mere benevolence can be used by the devil to a very considerable degree. It's something that's very advantageous to him. The word that conveys what I'm talking about," says Muggeridge, "and which has become a rather fashionable word today, is the word 'compassion.'" For example, we can only witness how prelates and priests are riveting this tolerance doctrine into the souls of errant Catholics with a "feigned benevolence towards homosexuals and homosexuality," teaches Muggeridge. Nor let us overlook Fr. John Hardon's words on how to tell if one is truly practicing the Catholic Faith or not, he would teach: "If you are practicing the Catholic faith, you are living the Eighth Beatitude: 'Blessed are you when they shall revile you, and persecute you, and speak all that is evil against you, unjustly, for My Sake: be glad and rejoice, for your reward is very great in heaven. For so they persecuted the prophets that were before you.'" So lives a "fervent Catholic" and so lives any soul on his road to heaven.Nor is anyone worthy of being a Pope if he does not the same. Only compare Pope Pius X with any one of the "counciliar" popes. So be it.

How about a suffering servant? Least of these? One willing to immolate himself?

Sounds like the job description laid out by The Master Servant.

"Wa wa wa the Pope didn't do XYZ..." Why not do it yourself?! He gave you the way. Take your tradition and renew the liturgy in communities of various forms (rather than sitting on hands at the dance, not liking the music)?!

May our new Pope be: Solidly Traditional and Orthodox in the Faith.Courageous and fearless in standing ground against the wolves and Satan's henchmen.Denounce and eradicate all abuses and Modernist inventions.In suffering may he become stronger and more Holy and be a shining light in the darkness.May he lead all of us to Paradise.Please God.

Benedict Carter said..."I think probably much too young to have known the first NO which was followed by the second in the early '70's and then another and then another .... and each with 5,000 variations depending what mood the priest's cat woke up with."

I lived through those days.

----------------------------------

Benedict Carter said..."The NO, if left unabrogated which is all it's fit for) in a generation's time will look like what? An American Baptist "mega Church" slap and clap fest, with no pretence to be Catholic in any shape or form."

Yes. That is why Pope Benedict XVI has pushed for a new liturgical movement that will recall the authentic reform of the Roman Mass that the Council Fathers had desired.

It is undeniable that at the time of the Council, the overall state of Latin liturgy was, at best, mediocre.

That is why 2,147 bishops to 2 at Vatican II voted if favor of the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy. That included such Tradition-imbued men as Archbishop Lefebvre.

As the Society of Saint Pius X has acknowledged — again, they have to as the public record exists — Archbishop Lefebvre was determined at Vatican II to reform the Traditional Roman Mass.

For example, he favored the heavy vernacularization of the Mass of the Catechumens. He and 2,147 bishops to 2 were determined to improve the state of Latin Church liturgy.

But he and the majority of bishops were determined to reform the Traditional Roman Mass in prudent fashion. They did not wish to destroy Latin Church liturgy.

Unfortunately, following the Council, the revolutionaries were able to shipwreck Latin Church liturgy.

At any rate, I had long held the belief that the Latin Church would one day return to the Traditional Roman Mass...akin to the 1962 form.

But as I now realize, that was a mere dream on my part. After all, the vast majority of orthodox bishops at Vatican II, including Archbishop Lefebvre, were determined to refom the 1962 Mass in serious, but prudent ways.

They did not set out to gut Latin Church liturgy.

Therefore, as Pope Benedict XVI has moved the Church to recapture the orthodox liturgical movement of Vatican II's time...Archbishop Lefebvre's time...the Latin Church will one day encounter Vatican II's authentic vision of the reformed (prudently so) Traditional Roman Mass.

, at least the — that the Latin Church would one day return

That is reality. From there, we can entertain hope that the reformed-yet-ungutted Roman Mass that Archbishop Lefebvre and additional orthodox bishops envisioned some 50 years ago will benefit the Faithful.

-------------------------------

Benedict Carter said..."By then I'll have joined the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church, or the Maronites."

Okay. But don't be surprised when you encounter the destructive out-of-control ecumenism that is derived from the I-Am-Orthodox-In-Communion-With-Rome Zoghby Initiative.

"Only compare Pope Pius X with any one of the "counciliar" popes. So be it."

After my own heart. Well stated. Padre Pio called Pope St Pius X his preferred out of all the popes as he most resembled The Christ. He is my benchmark. he has well-described who the internal eenemies of the church are.

The next Pope need only get all of Christendom on their knees praying the rosary daily without fail. How many crisis has this one remedy solved over the centuries! It is very curious that devotions in general and the rosary in particular have fallen by the wayside.

The next pope need only get all of Christendom on their knees praying the Rosary ..

Yes, that would do it.

But before that would happen, I suspect we need something to bring prideful men (and the Catholic Church is full of them,) to their knees. Something dreadful ? Something terrible ? A chastisement ? I really don't know, and honestly don't like to think too much about it.

In the meantime, I would say, heed Gladius. Pray the Rosary. Pray without ceasing !

If St. Pope Pius X was so successful against modernism, why did it survive his papacy? Driving something underground is not the same as destroying it. What we need is alot more personal holiness and Christian charity and a lot less backseat drivers in the comboxes screaming for 'action'. Many people have failed to listen to Pope Benedict's wisdom. Many people also failed to listen to the direct preaching of Jesus Christ. This has been the case since the beginning.

These cries for worldly 'action' are unsurprising considering the politics and ties of some 'trads'. Thankfully, traditional Catholicism is starting to move beyond the socio-political garbage of the old European Right and embracing Christ and His Church as a means to salvation, not an instrument to fulfill the myopic dream of a political restoration of a bygone era.

Tom (and others), You may not be aware that the one known as the Hammer of Heretics is St Anthony of Padua. You may also not know that within the Church St Anthony has for many long years had great credibility with masses of the faithful, and in particular faithful who could hardly be described as intellectuals. That is the beauty of saints. They are able to combine uncompromising Faith with uncompromising Charity. They show us how to be gentle as doves and wily as serpents.

Gladius said..."The next Pope need only get all of Christendom on their knees praying the rosary daily without fail. How many crisis has this one remedy solved over the centuries! It is very curious that devotions in general and the rosary in particular have fallen by the wayside."

That is the kind of "hammer" Pope that we need.

The unfortunate reality is that as long as Holy Mother Church has existed, She has suffered from the massive disobedience, chaos and sins that countless Catholics have embraced.

The Traditional Roman Mass and Eastern Divine Liturgies are not magical. When the Traditional Roman Mass was in place, Holy Mother Church experienced times when millions of Her children abandonded Her.

Incredible chaos existed at times within the Papacy. Massive sin and corrpution existed among bishops and priests who offered the Traditional Roman Mass.

There isn't any question that the Church is in dire need of liturgical reform. The state of Catholic liturgy has collapsed.

Holy, Traditional liturgy is most certainly more likely than mediocre liturgy to form holy Catholics.

But even if the Holy See kneeled and bowed to the SSPX...even if the TLM were restored to altars throughout the Latin Church...the Church would find Herself in the same situation that has existed from Her beginning:

Sinful behavior, widespread corruption and dissension would exist among priests, religious and laity. Alongside said folks would be found holy Catholics.

The TLM would not bring the above to an end.

Sorry, but for centuries, even during the best of times, millions of Catholic who assisted at TLMs also cheated on their spouses, committed thefts, murders, crimes of all sorts, demolished the Commandments and often renounced Catholicism for various religions or even atheism.

All that anybody can do is to lead a holy. From there, they may inspire other folks to follow suit. That can be done in our Novus Ordo times. Although the TLM does more to impart a stronger sense of Catholicism to the Faithful...if they wish truly to receive said identity.

We need a pope who will in his first days a) dissolve the Legionaries of Christ, sell their assets and return the proceeds to donors; b) Expel Cdls Mahony, Law and Sodano from the college of cardinals; c) Tell the Congregation of the Holy Cross to install his preference as president of Notre Dame or pull their men out of the university; d) Absolve from their vows and dismiss from the clerical state all Jesuits who have promoted or condoned the homosexualization of Jesuit campuses and culture. And much else in the same vein.

2. Withdraw the communion in the hand indult. Abolish the chalice.

3. Insist that Confession be offered before during and after every Mass of Saturday evening and Sunday.

4. Attack the hyper-sexualization of the culture. This has not been done. We are against abortion, but not anywhere near as forcefully against the thing that leads to abortion.

There's a cataclysmic difference between the Catholics of today and yesterday: uninformed Catholic consciences and an unholy clergy has precipitated the Great Apostasy that now plagues the Roman Catholic Church today unlike yesterday's sinful Catholics gone astray in, of course, sad numbers. Nevertheless, at least the Catholics of yesterday had 'informed Catholic consciences' and a quasi holy clergy who still retained a 'sense of sin'. The NO of today's suburbia is heterodox, uninformed, and apostate along with its clergy vis-a-vis an "informed Cathlolic conscience" and an orthodox 'sense of sin.' Consider Bishop Athanasius' holy words: "Whoever wishes to be saved must above all keep the Catholic faith, unless one keep this faith 'whole and entire' he will undoubtedly lose his soul." An informed Catholic conscience is a "sine qua non" for eternal salvation. Catholics were not contracepting and aborting their offspring out of existence 50 years ago; nor weree they sterilizing themselves,and euthanizing their parents and kin; finally, homosexuality was not even a figment of their moral psyches in those days, and the Confessional Box had long lines of repentant sinners unlike today with the 'sense of sins' demise. "By their fruits you will know them." Unlike yesterday, these are wicked times: thanks to moral relativism and 'uninformed Catholic consciences' in the pews and among the clergy! When the holy TLM was dropped by VII and Pope Paul VI, all hell literally broke loose in the Church and the world with the aforementioned floodgates of immorality. "Post hoc, ergo propter hoc." Let us remember Fr. John Hardon, S.J.'s words: "Ordinary Catholics will not survive these times, only heroic, holy Catholics will survive." Voila! Deus miserere nobis J Hughes Dunphy

Lee Gilbert makes an excellent comment. I would add to that: the next pope needs to affirm unequivocally that there is only one true Church of Jesus Christ, and the Roman Catholic Church is it. The ambiguity on this vital issue introduced by the ambiguous language of V2 caused untold hundreds of thousands of catholics and non catholics to question why one should bother belonging to the Catholic Church. It was demoralizing and confusing.

For example, take St. Thomas More. His isn't simply a story of fidelity to conscience. Rather, it's a story of fidelity to a properly formed conscience, and thus ultimately a story of fidelity to God-given truth. It's a story of glorious conformity of the subjective to the objective.

(Speaking of glorious conformity, see the little 30-page masterpiece of St. Alphonsus Liguori, Uniformity With God's Will.)

This clarification isn't trivial, especially under today's dictatorship of relativism. Many hold fast to conscience, but their consciences are disordered. For example, many - as a matter of conscience - embrace legalized contraception and surgical infanticide, for example. Yet their fidelity is to be spurned, not applauded. Fidelity to a perverted conscience is no virtue.

Benedict Carter said..."By then I'll have joined the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church, or the Maronites."

Tom said...Okay. But don't be surprised when you encounter the destructive out-of-control ecumenism that is derived from the I-Am-Orthodox-In-Communion-With-Rome Zoghby Initiative. Oh, and more than a few Maronite parishes are Novus Ordo-like.

After reading both comments, I went on line to read a little about Eastern Catholics and the liturgical reform. One traditional Catholic Web Site said the Eastern bishops at Vatican II were very liberal and helped with the liberal reforms that trads hate.

Then I found this on a Byzantine Catholic priest named Robert Taft. He says he totally supports the New Mass and says it's a great success. Are there really priests like this in the east?

Opponents of the modern liturgy could use a history lesson, says this scholar of the church's prayer. Overall, the liturgical reform has been a great success.

If any scholar could claim a ring-side seat to the liturgical reform of the 20th century, it would have to be Father Robert Taft, S.J. Taft recalls being surprised when he arrived in Europe in 1964 to see liturgical change already well underway.

"Worker priests in Western Europe were celebrating the liturgy in the vernacular because it was the only way to come into contact with the de-Christianized workers there," he says. "The notion of celebrating the liturgy for them in Latin was simply absurd."

"Liturgy has always changed."

Forty years after the Second Vatican Council, there is still argument about its liturgical reform. What do you make of the continuing opposition to the "new" liturgy?

Let me put my cards right on the table: I'm a Vatican II loyalist without apologies to anyone. The mandate for liturgical reform was passed by the council with an overwhelming majority, so it is the tradition of the Catholic Church, like it or lump it.

Unfortunately, partly as a result of the schism of the late Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre and his followers, there has been an attempt on the part of a group of what I call "neo-cons" to portray the reforms of Vatican II as something that was foisted upon the church by a small minority of professionals contrary to the will of many people in the church. This is what we know in the vernacular as slander.

The reforms of the council were carried out under Pope Paul VI in a spirit of complete collegiality. Every suggested adaptation, change, or modification was sent out to every Catholic bishop in the world, and the responses that came in were treated with the utmost respect. When changes were severely questioned or opposed by a large number of bishops, they were revised according to the will of the bishops and then sent back again.

Benedict Carter writes: "The destruction took less than five years. The Restoration can take the same or less." He conveniently forgets that when the spirit of Vatican II was rampaging through the Church, seeking what it could devour, there was still an inbuilt tendency among all priests to obedience.

Generally speaking, in the west we currently have a generation of priests distorted by the "Spirit of Vatican II" for whom obedience is an amusing historical footnote, and a newer generation of good, well formed, priests who operate in an atmosphere of uncomfortable obedience to generally unsatisfactory bishops.

" ... partly as a result of the schism of the late Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre ... there has been an attempt ... to portray the reforms of Vatican II as something that was foisted upon the church by a small minority of professionals contrary to the will of many people in the church. This is what we know in the vernacular as slander."

No, it's what we call historical truth.

You are clearly unfamiliar with the concrete history of Bugnini and his cabel of protestant "advisors" who came up with the NO.

"3. Insist that Confession be offered before during and after every Mass of Saturday evening and Sunday".

Yes, absolutely, it's so obviously needed - and at the same time the cause of abandonment of confession needs to be addressed, namely lack of belief in the real presence - I believe very firmly that this is the root cause of most if not all of the ills, in the western Church at least.

Mrs. Carter, please understand that real traditionalists don't support any "reform of the reform." This is because they recognize the hard truth that much of Vatican II can't be reconciled with the previous 1,930 years of Church teaching. The VII teaching on religious freedom in Dignitatis Humanae is just the most obvious example. Many more could be provided, all showing that the "hermeneutic of continuity" is a sad exercise in tortured illogic.

Recommended reading:

Iota Unum: A Study of Changes in the Catholic Church in the Twentieth Century, by Romano Amerio

The Catechism of the Crisis in the Church, by Fr. Matthias Gaudron

One Hundred Years of Modernism, by Fr. Dominic Bourmaud]

And Google for this article:

"The Oath Against Modernism vs. the 'Hermeneutic of Continuity'" by John Vennari

Benedict Carter said..."We need a Hammer of the Heretics, neither more nor less."

That is the last thing that we need. Such an approach would make our current crisis of faith look like the Garden of Eden.

Well, yes; in that dialogue with the enemy in the Garden of Evil led to death even as dialogue with our enemies is leading to our death.

As the perceptive and provocative Priest, Rev. Anthony Cekada noted in his classic, Work of Human Hands, the modernists eliminated nearly all "heresy" references in the collects of such Saints as Saint Peter Canisius, " ...called during the Protestant revolt, 'the Hammer of Heretics,' "

(Read his book, It is not only invaluable, it is teeming with his hysterically funny sly and wry asides).

It was not surprising that the modernists trashed such "negative" truths for they had contracted a debilitating intellectual form of VD having entered into intercourse with the French Revolution and The Enlightenment but what is surprising and saddening, is that so many soi disant Traditionalists have contracted that intellectual infection and have internalised those "negative" categories as things to be avoided.

BTW, that intellectual infection - and it is deadly infectious and is easily transmitted - can only be cured by daily doses of Tradition.

As for real Catholic men, we try to assist at The Real Mass as often as possible and we, daily, pray for the conversion of non-Catholics using this very negative prayer by that ol' meanie, Pope Pius IX>

Prayer for conversions

O Mary, Mother of Mercy and Refuge of sinners, we beseech thee, be pleased to look with pitiful eyes upon poor heretics and schismatics. Thou who art the Seat of Wisdom, enlighten the minds that are miserably enfolded in the darkness of ignorance and sin, that they may clearly know that the Holy Catholic and Apostolic Roman Church is the one true Church of Jesus Christ, outside of which neither holiness nor salvation can be found. Finish the work of their conversion by obtaining for them the grace to accept all the truths of our Holy Faith, and to submit themselves to the Supreme Roman Pontiff, the Vicar of Jesus Christ on earth; that so, being united with us in the sweet chains of Divine charity, there may soon be one only fold under the same one Shepherd; and may we all, O Glorious Virgin, sing forever with exultation: Rejoice, O Virgin Mary, thou only hast destroyed all heresies in the whole world. Amen.

The "supernatural virtue" of hope refers to a disposition implanted by God, one of the three Theological Virtues, by which we confidently expect to reach heaven and to obtain the means for arriving there, with God's grace.

It has absolutely NOTHING to do with hoping that a traditionalist cardinal will magically emerge from a pool of men appointed by popes who were the architects of Vatican II.

There is really enough confusion about all things Catholic. When you speak of "supernatural" hope, you are referring to a Theological Virtue, and you have misunderstood the term.

Dear Judith. You wrote an excellent first paragraph that you immediately undermined by your second...

...we confidently expect to reach heaven and to obtain the means for arriving there, with God's grace. and the means are realised via a Pope who institutes a Traditional restoration of our once great and Holy Catholic Church

My first paragraph corrected your misunderstanding. Your kudos to me for the correction would imply that you can see your mistake, understand what the word means, and will not continue in error.

I'm afraid it is your second paragraph which demonstrates that this is not the case.

We don't obtain the grace necessary for salvation from the Pope. Once again, the supernatural virtue of hope has NOTHING to do with the Pope.

Whoever the Pope might be, or whatever his politics might be, God gives everyone the grace to save their souls. Of course, we obtain the grace necessary for salvation from God:"The sacraments are the most efficacious, for they produce their effects ex opere operato, that is, they infallibly produce grace in those who receive the sacraments with the proper dispositions. The other two means -- meritorious good works and the prayer of petition -- produce their effects ex opere operantis, that is, their efficacy depends on the dispositions of the human agent, working under the impetus of grace and relying on God's benevolent love."

We have strayed very far my original comments, and that may be the intention of your remarks.

I stated that there is no hope that a Traditional Pope will arise from the current College of Cardinals, who were all appointed by the architects of Vatican II.

You have, in no way, refuted this remark, which I feel very confident will be born out in time.